Aristotle was awesome. there is that one story of him going down the market and someone called him like an imposter and an asshole or something. he didnt react and when someone else asked him why he wasnt offended. he said: when someone says something, its either true or it is not. if its true, you shouldnt be offended cause well its true. if it isnt, well you know it isnt so why feel offended?

Aristotle was awesome. there is that one story of him going down the market and someone called him like an imposter and an asshole or something. he didnt react and when someone else asked him why he wasnt offended. he said: when someone says something, its either true or it is not. if its true, you shouldnt be offended cause well its true. if it isnt, well you know it isnt so why feel offended?

i really love that anecdote

Aristotles greatest story, like Socrates, is the way he died. After years of sieging his city (Syracuse) the Romans finally got to the city. Centurion told his men "Find Aristotales, but do not hurt that great man". Anyhoo, soldier who finally found his home kicked the door down, and found him busy with experiments.
Basically, Aristotales was so pre-occupied with his work that he couldn't be bothered by trivial matters such as a Roman invasion or his door getting kicked down by a soldier.
The soldier was so upset because he was ignored that he killed one of the greatest minds in history. He got crucified for disobeying orders and killing an unarmed civilian.

__________________Sig by Fenikz

I remember NFLDCdon't tell anyone, but Charlie Casserly is a dope fiend

As an educator, I had to go with John Locke.
My school e-mail signature line contains one of his quotes.
"It is one thing to show a man that he is in an error, and another to put him in possession of the truth."

As an educator, I had to go with John Locke.
My school e-mail signature line contains one of his quotes.
"It is one thing to show a man that he is in an error, and another to put him in possession of the truth."

Possession of what truth. That is the main problem. Also, why there was a progression in philosophy.

In our world today, truth is popular consensus of "experts". Whatever the majority of "experts" believes in is truth. Because most people don't have the expertise and knowledge in the subject in question, they are almost forced to believe what a higher being in society tells them. This is what truth is today in our world, a belief in the words of the "experts".

In our world today, truth is popular consensus of "experts". Whatever the majority of "experts" believes in is truth. Because most people don't have the expertise and knowledge in the subject in question, they are almost forced to believe what a higher being in society tells them. This is what truth is today in our world, a belief in the words of the "experts".

This is kind of a very post modern thought. That perception creates a reality, or truth, and this perception you would argue is told to us by experts.

This is kind of a very post modern thought. That perception creates a reality, or truth, and this perception you would argue is told to us by experts.

Not really. Postmodernists would say that discourse creates the supposed truth. The very concept of an "expert" is a complete social construction which comes from the manipulation of discourse, not from a supposed enlightened perspective.

I would also disagree with the premise. Most people in the world are actually staunchly anti-intellectual, particularly in the United States, where probably a good half the population doesn't belief in evolution. Expert that.

The problem with Locke, and most rationalists in my estimation, is that they never really define what 'rationalism' is (take truth out of the equation for a second, as even rationalists don't really belief in truth). The observer does not create the event, the event creates the self-perception of the observer, which is inherently unknowable except through discursive practices.

The idea that one has established a basis of rationality is completely self-illusory.

Totally slap in the face to objectivist not to be even mentioned...All kidding aside Ayn Rand is my favorite philosopher to read, while she's an idealist her ideals are so simply awesome that it's tough not to appreciate. Machiavelli's fasinating and I'll always love Voltaire, Nietzsche, Sartre and Descartes.